2017
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010185.pub3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Totally percutaneous versus surgical cut-down femoral artery access for elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair

Abstract: Totally percutaneous versus surgical cut-down femoral artery access for elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
34
0
2

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
(1 reference statement)
2
34
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Although surgical cut down access was historically thought to be the safer method, existing literature has conflicting results with some studies showing no difference in outcomes based on percutaneous or cut down access and others reporting better results with the percutaneous approach. [35][36][37] The estimated blood loss was higher in the OUS cohort, as could be expected from the higher percentage of surgical cut downs. However, the overall estimated blood loss in this trial (94.0 6 147.1 mL) is nearly one-third of what was reported for the previous generation system in the Valor II trial (277.0 6 468.8 mL) 2 and one-half of the 216 6 293 mL of another contemporary device.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 60%
“…Although surgical cut down access was historically thought to be the safer method, existing literature has conflicting results with some studies showing no difference in outcomes based on percutaneous or cut down access and others reporting better results with the percutaneous approach. [35][36][37] The estimated blood loss was higher in the OUS cohort, as could be expected from the higher percentage of surgical cut downs. However, the overall estimated blood loss in this trial (94.0 6 147.1 mL) is nearly one-third of what was reported for the previous generation system in the Valor II trial (277.0 6 468.8 mL) 2 and one-half of the 216 6 293 mL of another contemporary device.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 60%
“…The cut-down method allows for complete visualisation of the femoral vessels, but takes longer and is associated with groin wound complications as seen following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, the percutaneous approach for endovascular access is now favoured in most cases. [30][31] This study is limited by the use of cadaveric specimens which assume a 'fixed' anatomical position after embalming and were free from trauma that would have otherwise distorted the anatomy. It is conceivable that within the context of multisystem trauma whereby injuries are sustained to the trunk and lower limbs simultaneously, a blind landmark-based technique such as the one proposed may be less effective.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Perclose sutures are secured, and heparin is administered to maintain an activated clotting time > 250 s. If the common femoral is not suitable for access, the superficial femoral artery may be used in selected cases with a large‐caliber vessel . When percutaneous access is not feasible, femoral or iliac artery surgical exposure is a safe alternative …”
Section: Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Techniquesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…16 When percutaneous access is not feasible, femoral or iliac artery surgical exposure is a safe alternative. 17,18 Figure 3 demonstrates the sequence of endograft deployment.…”
Section: Procedural Techniquementioning
confidence: 99%